Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Play.com, Hitachi + Zone repair company.


Drifting
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6351 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Wonder if anyone can help?

 

I am at a loss to know what is the right thing to do. My wife bought a large screen lcd tv for my birthday at the end of august 2006. The tv had a few intermittant problems with the picture and I put this down to interference. However in early december 2006 the fault was almost constant, with this in mind I contacted play.com (Who were really pleasant) and they said Hitachi looks after the warranty. I called Hitachi and they said they used local repairers acorss the UK, and gave me the number of the local agent. The TV was collected on the 2nd Jan 2007 and I was told 7 - 10 days for the repair. I waited 10 days and called the repairer, only to be told 7 - 10 business days! I waited the required 10 business days, only to be told it's still being looked at. I called again on this week and still get the same reply.

 

At this stage I was feeling a tad annoyed (we were stuck with a 35 year old 12" portable) And contacted play again asking if they could help? Again they were very helpful but felt that I should really contact Hitachi as they had it under repair. Off I went to Hitachi, who said leave it with them (this was monday) and they would call me back. Not a word heard from them!

 

Am I being unreasonable to expect this back quicker? It will be a month on tuesday without the tv.

 

Regards Paul.

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your contract is actually with Play and they are the ones with responsibility to repair the TV (or arrange for the repair) under the Sale of Goods Act, which says that the repair should be done within a reasonable time (although this time is not specified, it differs depending on the product - a fridge would be more urgent than an entertainment system for example, as it is more of a necessity).

 

If you go to the manufacturer under the warranty, you are entirely bound by the terms and conditions of this warranty, so do check these to see what they say.

 

Be aware that if the manufacturer ends up replacing the TV, you could well affect your rights under the Sale of Goods Act as you effectively have a different product to the one Play sold to you.

 

I would contact Play again and remind them that they have responsibility under the Sale of Goods Act to repair faulty goods and ensure that it is done "within a reasonable time", and see what response you get.

  • Confused 1

Please note I'm not insured in this capacity, so if you need to, do get official legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...